JUDGMENT: Though the matter was listed for considering the petition filed by the second respondent (interim order of stay) by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition, itself was heard on merit, along with the other two writ petitions raising similar questions where the very same learned counsels are appearing for the writ petitioners and the respondents.

2. In all these writ petitions, the prayer has been made for quashing the preliminary findings dated 20.11.2002 under the proceedings No.14/19/2002-DGAD. It has been further prayed that Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for determination of injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) as illegal and unconstitutional.

3. Sec.9-A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ empowers the Central Government to impose Anti-Dumping duty on any article exported from any country in to India at less than its normal value. Sec.9-B(2) empowers the Central Government to make rules which may provide in the manner in which investigation may be made and the factor which should be considered at any stage of investigation and for all matters connected with such investigation. In exercise of rule making power under Sec.9-B(2) of the Rules 1995 have been framed. The validity of Rule 7 having been challenged is extracted hereunder:

“Rule 7: Confidential Information: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (2), (3) and (7), Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 15 and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 17, the copies of applications received under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorization of the party providing such information.

(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish no-confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information.”

It is also appropriate to notice some of the other relevant rules:

Rule 5 relating to initiation of investigation and Rule 6 which incorporates principles governing investigations.

Rule 12 provides that designated authority shall record preliminary finding regarding export price, normal value and margin of dumping, and in respect of the imports from specified countries, the injury to the domestic industry.

Rule 13 empowers the Central Government to levy provisional duty on the basis of the preliminary findings recorded by the designated authority.

Rule 16 mandates the designated authority to inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which forms the basis for its decision before giving its final findings as contemplated under Rule 17.

Rule 18 empowers the Central Government to levy duty within three months of the date of publication of final findings by the designated authority.

Rule 21(2) envisages that if, the antidumping duty fixed after the conclusion of the investigation is lower than the provisional duty already imposed and collected, the differential shall be refunded to the importer.

Rule 21(3) provides that if the provisional duty imposed by the Central Government is withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document